Magic numbers and golden rules

Abstract

The application of fire safety research using engineering methods is frustrated by conventional attitudes. The desire of researchers to always achieve a greater level of understanding means that they cannot recognize that satisfactory engineering solutions may be achieved with partial information. The desire of regulators to have simple rules and tests for administrative convenience contrasts with the need of designers to have maximum flexibility in order to arrive at optimum solutions. The magic numbers embodied in regulations are accepted without question, while any engineering solution is subject to a disproportionately high standard of proof. To move forward, rules need to have an engineering basis and to be goal-related: The purpose of the rules needs to be understood by both researchers and regulators. IntroductlonThe value of this scientific conference is that it provides not only a forum for the exchange of information but also an opportunity for the exchange of ideas. Indeed, we understand that several new lines of research were conceived directly as a result of discussions at earlier IAFSS conferences. We, as practitioners, would also like to exchange ideas with scientists, and it is the purpose of this paper to stimulate similar discussions.During the closing sessions of most fire research conferences there is a plea for more contributions from the practitioners--the consultants and the fire service--and there is normally a murmur of agreement to this from the audience. At the next conference, therefore, a token consultant and a token fire officer will each present a paper. From long experience as token consultants, we know that any such paper will attract virtually no comment or there will be a trivial question which shows that the concepts have been misunderstood or ignored. It can be m'gued, of course, that the papers were badly written, but it is our view that many researchers are not interested in applications--that is, how designers and firemen solve practical problems--or they are interested in only a very narrow field of fire engineering.Not all researchers need to be interested in applications, but we believe that for many of us, it would be beneficial if we could have a better understanding of each This paper is reprinted from Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium, with permission from the IAFSS.

Transparency vs magic numbers: The development of stair design requirements in the Italian Fire Safety Code

“…For example, studies discuss the fact that magic numbers included in fire codes are generally accepted without question [9]. In contrast, transparency in the code numbers has been mentioned as a clear need by the fire safety community.…”

Performance‐based design, expertise asymmetry, and professionalism: Fire safety regulation in the neoliberal era

“…Many fire engineers operating in the US thus describe their role mainly as that of "code consultants" rather than engineers. 4 Prescriptive codes also comprise a patchwork of requirements that has evolved over many years, with the rationale for many of these requirements appearing dated, and with quantitative requirementswhat Law and Beever (1995) refer to as "magic numbers"set out without explicit scientific or engineering explanation. For example, the UK requirement for a maximum reversing distance of 20 meters for fire tenders is said to have its origins in the "maximum distance that horses pulling pumps could reasonably be encouraged to reverse without excessive use of a whip" (Bullock & Monaghan 2014, p. 25).…”

A Review of Sociological Issues in Fire Safety Regulation

“…In some cases (e.g. the British rule that a horizontal escape route should not be within 4.5m of an opening such as an escalator or atrium [37]) the precise origins and logic of the prescriptive rules (sometimes referred to as 'magic numbers') are unknown even to many skilled fire safety engineering practitioners [38].…”